Jump to content
The Wifcon Forums and Blogs

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'task order'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Instructions and Terms of Use
    • Terms Of Use
    • Before You Register, Before You Post
  • Contracting Forum
    • Section 809 Panel
    • Polls
    • For Beginners Only
    • Contracting Workforce
    • Contract Award Process
    • Contract Pricing Including CAS & Allowable Costs
    • Contract Administration
    • Schedules, GWACS, MACs, IDIQs
    • Subcontracts & Subcontract Management
    • Small Business, Socioeconomic Programs
    • Proposed Law & Regulations; Legal Decisions

Blogs

  • The Wifcon Blog
  • Vern Edwards' Blog
  • Don Mansfield's Blog
  • Bob Antonio's Blog
  • NCMAExecutiveDirector's Blog
  • Professor Ralph Nash's Blog
  • Emptor Cautus' Blog
  • Centre Knowledge Blog
  • Leftbrainpro.com Answer Blog
  • SmallGovCon.com
  • Patterns of Procurement

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Categories

  • Rules & Tools
  • Legal Opinions
  • News

Found 5 results

  1. In light of a recent protest (WIFCON link http://www.wifcon.com/cgen/4114813.pdf, docket B-411481.3 dated 6 January 2016) regarding a task order issued off a Federal Supply Schedule, I've heard chatter from legal advisors that the clause at FAR 52.216-22 doesn't set the effective date of the IDIQ. Consequently, they argue that clause cannot be a mechanism by which a task order featuring option years can be performed for years beyond the end of the ordering period. This interpretation seems entirely contradictory to the specific language featured in FAR 52.216-22. The clause in the IDIQ in question cuts paragraph (d) short, omitting the date fill-in. GSA's ordering guide places the following restriction on task orders which use options (emphasis supplied by the GAO) Interestingly, GSA has revised their ordering guides within the last two weeks to put an end to the issue this portion of the protest encountered: https://interact.gsa.gov/document/important-update-new-mas-refresh-mass-modification-changes-february-2016-streamline Researching WIFCon, I've found relevant discussions. Here: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1665-task-orders-that-extend-beyond-base-contract-pop/#comment-14003 Vern's invaluable blog post at http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/blogs/entry/644-those-pesky-idiq-contracts-again/ provided some excellent reading, but nothing that corresponds with what I am hearing from legal counsel. Another discussion seems to predate the fateful action which triggered the protest in question: http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/1768-gsa-to-with-options-beyond-k-period/ Based on the buzzings, it seems as though legal counsel is applying the restrictions imposed by GSA onto DOD contracting officers. Legal counsel has argued that: 1. The effective period may end prior to the ordering period; 2. The date of FAR 52.216-22(d) is NOT relevant to the IDIQ's effective period; 3. The contract's effective date is the same as the IDIQ's ordering period 4. The date if FAR 52.216-22(d) is only relevant to the performance period for delivery under a Task Order and thus cannot be construed to include options under that performance; 5. Inclusion of the date in FAR 52.216-22(d) would not have changed GAO's analysis of the protest in question; and 6. Task orders are not stand alone contracts and once an IDIQ has expired (rendering the contract "no longer effective), the delivery under a Task Order is irrelevant. Summarily, legal counsel is strongly criticizing the idea of setting an IDIQ's "effective date" by way of the fill-in text in FAR 52.216-22. In fact, I am lead to expect this "ruling" by the various legal offices will impact DOD contracts significantly, requiring contracting officers to come up with a variety of complex "work-arounds". Is there something I never learned or never understood with regards how FAR 52.216-22 works? EDIT: Made a clarification.
  2. Is a Determination and Findings (D&F) report required to exercise an option for a task order under a GSA IDIQ contract under the simplified acquisition threshold ($150,000)?
  3. I have an IDIQ contract to supply contract personnel to perform Quality Assurance Testing. The IDIQ is a 5 year contract with an 8a firm and the 5 years will end Sept 2016. I currently have a task order in place that was issued for 2 years and ends Sept 2013. I simply need to issue another task order (nearly identical to the first) and wish to do it for the remaining 3 years of the IDIQ contract. Here's the catch...the PM has informed me we do not have sufficient funds for the entire 3 years, but do have enough for one year. According to the Blogs I've read along with FAR 702 there really are no restrictions to writing a task order with options. I would like the task order to have a base year to cover FY14, one option for an additional 12 months to cover FY15, and one more option to cover FY16 bringing me to the end of the IDIQ contract. Keep in mind, the task order will end on the last day of the IDIQ contract. Can someone provide me with some justification or a section in the FAR I can point to for our contracting department? Thanks in advance.
  4. Scenario: A multiple award IDIQ contract for R&D servcies was awarded sometime near the end of FY'09. The vehicle consisted of 37 base contracts with 37 different contractors. All base contracts were funded with the established minimum ordering amount. I have recently taken over this contract and the time has come to exercise an option period on all of the contracts. To date there are 15 to 20 contractors that have not been awarded task orders. My reasoning tells me that upon exercising the option on these base contracts, I should be required to obligate funds in an amount equal to the minimum ordering amount and ensure that those funds remain present throughout all periods of performance until that time when a task order is awarded and the minimum ordering amount has been satisfied. I don't think this has taken place to date. I believe the contracts were modified to exercise the options, but the amount required to satisfy the minimum ordering amount was never carried through to the new period of performance. What would be the effect had the funds that were obligated upon award been no-year funds? Also, the specific language that was used in the contract seems to suggest that the minimum ordering amount is payable only at the end of the contract period, inclusive of options. Does that make a difference as regards the amount that should have been funded on the contract at time of award? The exact language from the contract follows: Fulfilling Minimum Ordering Requirements The Government has no obligation to issue task orders to any contractor beyond the minimum amount specified above. For each successful contractor, there will be a one time "minimum guarantee award amount" during the life of the contract, which includes all option years, if exercised. This amount can only be claimed at the end of the contract period if the contractor takes advantage of fair opportunity by proposing on at least one Task Order, within the Technical Areas for which the Contractor received award, offered to the contractor during the years for which the contractor is eligible.
  5. Good Afternoon, We are five months away from the end of the final period of performance of a task order issued under FAR Subpart 8.4 and the requesting activity requested that we extend the services for an additional six months while the new procurement is completed (solicitation should be posted in a few weeks). The solicitation this task order was awarded against did not contain clause 52.217-8, however, it was bilaterally added to the task order during the first period of performance. I have argued that extending the services for an additional six months constitutes a sole source procurement and requires a J&A in accordance with FAR Section 8.405-6 and FAR Subpart 6.3 (for open market items) as the clause was not included in the solicitation and considered as a part of the offers or resultant award. I am getting push back from management that a J&A is not necessary and we have the right to extend the services without synopsizing because the clause was bilaterally included in the task order, but I disagree. I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.
×